ArticleBMC nursing2020
Changing nursing practice within primary health care innovations: the case of advanced access model.
Article in BMC nursing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of Primary Healthcare Services in Kazakhstan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient-Centred Outcomes and Implications for Nursing Practice and Policy.Nursing open · 2026Pooled it
- Reimagining community health nursing: a qualitative participatory action research study of nurse-led primary healthcare innovation in rural Saudi Arabia.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- From 'quarterback' to 'coach': the policy implications of family physicians' evolving role in team-based care.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Implementing collaborative practices in healthcare settings using champions: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- Scope of practice of primary care nurses: a protocol for an umbrella review of international literature.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Network analysis of the relationship between error orientation, self-efficacy, and innovative behavior in nurses.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Intensity of nursing work in a primary healthcare center: An observational study.International journal of nursing sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- The patient's first point of contact (PINPOINT) - protocol of a prospective multicenter study of communication and decision-making during patient assessments by primary care registered nurses.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- State of the Art on Family and Community Health Nursing International Theories, Models and Frameworks: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Ten years later: A portrait of the implementation of the advanced access model in Quebec.Healthcare management forum · 2023Article
- Patients Living with Social Vulnerabilities Experience Reduced Access at Team-Based Primary Healthcare Clinics.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2023Article
- Nurses Transitioning to Primary Health Care in Australia: A Practice Improvement Initiative.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe advanced access (AA) model has attracted much interest across Canada and worldwide as a means of ensuring timely access to health care. While nurses contribute significantly to improving access in primary healthcare, little is known about the practice changes involved in this innovative model. This study explores the experience of nurse practitioners and registered nurses with implementation of the AA model, and identifies factors that facilitate or impede change.
methodsWe used a longitudinal qualitative approach, nested within a multiple case study conducted in four university family medicine groups in Quebec that were early adopters of AA. We conducted semi-structured interviews with two types of purposively selected nurses: nurse practitioners (NPs) (n = 6) and registered nurses (RNs) (n = 5). Each nurse was interviewed twice over a 14-month period. One NP was replaced by another during the second interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis based on two principles of AA and the Niezen & Mathijssen Network Model (2014).
resultsOver time, RNs were not able to review the appointment system according to the AA philosophy. Half of NPs managed to operate according to AA. Regarding collaborative practice, RNs were still struggling to participate in team-based care. NPs were providing independent and collaborative patient care in both consultative and joint practice, and were assuming leadership in managing patients with acute and chronic diseases. Thematic analysis revealed influential factors at the institutional, organizational, professional, individual and patient level, which acted mainly as facilitators for NPs and barriers for RNs. These factors were: 1) policy and legislation; 2) organizational policy support (leadership and strategies to support nurses' practice change); facility and employment arrangements (supply and availability of human resources); Inter-professional collegiality; 3) professional boundaries; 4) knowledge and capabilities; and 5) patient perceptions.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that healthcare decision-makers and organizations need to redefine the boundaries of each category of nursing practice within AA, and create an optimal professional and organizational context that supports practice transformation. They highlight the need to structure teamwork efficiently, and integrate and maximize nurses' capacities within the team throughout AA implementation in order to reduce waiting times.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.